Wednesday, March 11, 2020

First Goat, a Fable


This is the story of First Goat. First Goat lived long ago in the before the before time. He lived there, just north of south and little east of west, with all the other first animals. There were First Dog, First Horse, First Elephant, First Chicken, and all the others. And they all got along. First Rabbit would go for walks with First Fox without any worries because First Rabbit knew that First Fox had a taste for broccoli and not rabbit stew. Even First Mosquito preferred fruit juice.

The world was new. It was so new not everything had happened yet. And not everything that had happened had happened completely. Things had not yet stuck in their final place. Sometimes the grass would start out green in the morning but turn to purple around noon. It usually turned green again before night – but even night sometimes came early and sometimes came late. Sometimes the sun rose in the east, but sometimes it rose in the north. Things were still new. They had not stuck.

Some things were so new they had not happened yet at all. One day, the first rain fell. This surprised the first animals. But they found it refreshing. They were dry, dusty, and dirty. They needed the first bath. As the rain fell on their noses and on their tongues, they became thirsty. The first puddle formed. The animals gathered around it. First Goat was surprised to see the reflection of the beautiful blue sky in the water. The reflection was so clear, the puddle seemed to contain the whole sky.

Suddenly, First Goat remembered his thirst. Afraid the other animals might drink before he did, he
pushed them out of the way, butting and kicking. He began to gulp furiously. But remember – everything had not yet stuck. Would you believe First Goat gulped so fast and so hard that the sky’s reflection came unstuck he drank it up right off the puddle? And now First Goat was full of the reflection of the sky.

With the sky in his belly, First Goat became very, very, very hungry. He began to eat and eat and eat. But he could not get full. After all, how can you fill the sky? He ate grass, he ate bark, he even ate bugs – but you can’t fill the sky with grass and bark and bugs. He even ate the wrapper of the first Twinkie – left on the ground by First Litterbug.

No matter what he ate, nothing could fill the emptiness. He tried distracting himself by singing and dancing and playing games with the other animals. But he was still hungry and the empty sky inside would rumble and thunder. He tried to keep busy. He worked harder and longer. He built the first patio. Still he was hungry. He still contained the empty reflection of the sky.

And so have been all the goats that have come after First Goat. They still eat anything and everything. They still make noise all the time and keep moving, trying to satisfy the empty sky inside.

Humans are like First Goat. We experience a great emptiness, emptiness as big as the sky. We are full of the reflection, not of the sky, but of God. We are hungry – hungry for God. Like First Goat, we sometimes try desperately to fill that hunger with everything but God. We buy more and more stuff. We try to lose ourselves in work. We try to distract ourselves with play and entertainment. We move from place to place and from relationship to relationship. But we remain empty and restless.

As St. Augustine said, we are made for God and our hearts are restless until they rest in him. Our hearts are empty until they are filled with God. Try as we might to fill it with activity, things, or people, only God can fill our infinite emptiness. Activity, things, and people can distract us, can even numb us enough to forget the deep emptiness inside for a while. But they cannot fill us. They cannot satisfy. God created us for himself and God alone can satisfy us.

- The End -

Saturday, January 18, 2020

Thoughts on the Feast of the Confession of Peter

Window from St. Peter's Episcopal Church, Ripon, Wisconsin

Today (January 18) we celebrate that Peter confessed Jesus as "the Messiah, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). But we know that, for all that Peter got right in that declaration, he fundamentally misunderstood what it meant. Just a little later, after Jesus declares that "he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised" (Matthew 16:21), Peter rebukes him Jesus saying, "God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you" (Matthew 16:22) To which Jesus famously responds with his own rebuke, "Get behind me Satan!" (Matthew 16:23)

Peter had come to believe Jesus was the Messiah. But he believed that that meant Jesus had come to kick butt politically. He was supposed to be like King David beating up on the Philistines or like King Cyrus beating up on the Babylonians. Peter wanted the Messiah to be a divinely appointed bully to out-bully those he believed were bullying the people of God. He wanted a Lion of Judah. But he got the Lamb of God who came to undergo great suffering and be killed.

What Peter got was a Messiah committed to extravagant mercy. What he got was a Messiah who blessed not those with wealth and power, but the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness/justice, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, and those willing to be persecuted for the sake righteousness/justice.  What he got was a Messiah who rejected vengeance and insisted that enemies (yes, even those enemies) must be prayed for and forgiven. What he got was a Messiah who insisted that turning the other cheek was an essential discipline of his faithful followers. What he got was a Messiah who warned that we will be judged based on how we talk about and treat others, on our caring for the least of these, on our clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, welcoming the stranger, etc. What he got was a Messiah who insisted that life was not about winning, but, humility, self-sacrifice, and service. Indeed, it was about denying the self, taking up the cross and dying in order to truly live.

By the end, Peter came to understand. But not before notoriously denying Jesus. When the crisis came, the one who had made the solid rock confession, crumbled and admitted, "I do not know the man" (Matthew 26:72). Though that was partly to save his own butt – the butt Jesus would not save by kicking other butts – it was also one of the truest things Peter ever said. On a deep level, he still did not know Jesus or what it meant for Jesus to be the Messiah.

Like Peter, Christians through the ages have confessed Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God. But also, like Peter, Christians have been tempted to believe they know better than Jesus what that meant. Christians have been happy to affirm that Jesus is the Way, but less willing to follow in the Way Jesus is. We are still tempted to remake the Lamb of God into some Lion of Judah. We are tempted to look for a political King David or a worldly King Cyrus to deliver us from our enemies. But that is not the kind of Messiah Jesus is. Do we want to know him? Do we want to confess Jesus as the Messiah he is? Or do we want risk hearing the words with which Jesus rebuked Peter shortly after his confession?

Monday, December 23, 2019

Does it Feel Like Christmas?

Light of the World by Mark Missman
As I was preparing my Christmas sermon, I am reminded of a personal test of authenticity for things I read that occurred to me while I was in seminary. If, while I am reading (or listening to) something, I sense Christmas in it, that is a sign that the author/speaker is on to something. I think I first became aware of this when, while reading first volume of Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics, I suddenly felt the thrill I feel when hearing Christmas horns, bells, or carols. I know it sounds trite and potentially sentimental. It is certainly idiosyncratic. But when I sense Christmas in something I know it is tapping into deep truth. And it is not always something as heavy as a profound work of theology. It comes, as Christmas does, in simpler things. Here is what I think it is about.

In the Christmas story as recorded in the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke along with the first chapter of John, there is a vision of God that is at once expansive and intimate. It is also full of hope and promise – expectancy. There is the intimacy of the holy family huddled in the stable coping with a newborn but without the usual resources of home and extended family. On top of that they will have to flee for their lives and become refugees before it is all over. There are the down and out shepherds working the night shift doing work no one else wanted to do. There are the Magi, foreigners, strangers in a strange land, eccentrics following a star and a rumor of glory. Yet the God of the universe is intimately engaged in this homely setting. And more, this cast of outcasts is caught up in the great expectation of God’s extravagant promise to bless the nations and resolve the enmity between humans and God and humans and each other. It reaches a crescendo when the shepherds are bathed in the glory of the Lord and the angel announces extravagant good news that a savior is born. "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!"

There is fear and awe, but there is also the thrill of hope and possibility, of a great promise about to be fulfilled. The story contains all the darkness of oppression, violence, poverty, and displacement – both spiritual and physical. But in this small vulnerable baby the Love that moves the sun and all stars, the fire in the equation, has taken on human flesh with all its vulnerabilities – God with us. That Light shines in the darkness and the darkness does not overcome it. O little town of Bethlehem, the hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight!

This is a God who is intimate, a God who is both immanent and transcendent, a God who dares to show up as a vulnerable baby, a God who makes good on his promises, a God who delivers. Of course, the real heart and climax of the story comes on Easter. But, the Christmas story summarizes the good news of which Crucifixion and Resurrection are the exclamation point.

It does not matter what time of year it is. If, when I am reading theology or hearing a sermon or even reading a novel, I sense echoes of such joy and hope, if I catch a glimpse of this God, I take notice. When I don’t sense such echoes – when I don’t feel Christmas – I also take note. Some theologians, authors, and preachers suck Christmas right out of the room. Others can evoke it without trying or even intending to. Those are the ones I pay attention to.

I first made the connection reading Barth, but it is certainly also true of C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams, Dorothy Sayers, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Dorothy Day, Frederick Buechner, Rowan Williams, Julian of Norwich, Augustine, Dante, Graham Greene, Dostoevsky, and many others.

Have you ever felt that thrill of Christmas while reading or hearing someone?

Sunday, November 17, 2019

Why We Tithe


Since early in our marriage my wife, Leslie, and I have given away 10% and sometimes more of our income. That is a significant amount. It has not always been easy. It has meant sacrifices. But, over the years it has become such a part of our routine that, while there are certainly things we cannot do or buy that we might otherwise be able to, it has become as natural as paying the water bill.

Why do we do it? First of all, because we believe the story of Jesus Christ as understood in the Christian Tradition is the most beautiful and most true story there is. In Jesus “we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace that he lavished on us” (Ephesians 1:7-8). Experiencing some of that lavish grace has evoked in us a desire to respond to his generosity with our own. God is generous. In giving, we tune our hearts to the Generosity at the heart of all things.

We want to sink our hearts into the heart of God. Jesus said that where our treasure is, there our heart will be also (Matthew 6:19-21). Our giving has a sacramental quality as an outward and visible sign of the commitment of our hearts.

It is also a simple matter of obedience. Jesus tells us to give. So we give. Doing things out of a sense of duty is not a popular reason for doing things. But, we accept that it is our duty to be “faithful in working, praying, and giving for the spread of the Kingdom of God” (Episcopal Church Canon I.17.3). We believe the Church to be the body of Christ and the essential, if demonstrably imperfect, anticipation and witness to the kingdom of God. Therefore, we give to support the Church and its mission. Since I became bishop of the Diocese of Fond du Lac, that giving has been mostly divided between the several congregations of the diocese.

We also take seriously the biblical mandate, reinforced by Jesus, to care for the poor and those in need. In one of his parables, Jesus suggests that we should “make friends for ourselves” by giving to the poor who will then welcome us into heaven (Luke 16:1-15). In another, he warns us against the ignoring the desperate and destitute at our gate (Luke 16:19-31). Our Lord’s brother, James, asserts that true faith means to “care for orphans and widows in their distress” (James 1:27). In Ephesians 4:28, we are charged to “labor and work honestly with our own hands, so as to have something to share with the needy” as if that was the main reason for working.

Further, Jesus warns that we will be judged based on our care for those in need (Matthew 25:31-46). They are the sacramental presence of Jesus himself. As Pope Leo the Great (400-461) pointed out, “rightly in the needy and poor do we recognize the person of Jesus Christ our Lord Himself” (Sermon 9.III).

So, we give to aid the poor and those in need. Some of the 10% Leslie and I give to the churches of the diocese goes to that purpose through things like local food programs and other ministries. Beyond that, we give directly to organizations and entities that assist those in need.

Another reason we give is that the New Testament and the Christian Tradition clearly teach that money and wealth are spiritually dangerous. The more one has the more dangerous it becomes. It is not neutral. It is seductive. It creates a sort of spiritual static. It is not for nothing that Jesus says it is easier for a camel to make it through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to make it into heaven. He refers to wealth as adikias which means unrighteous. In Luke 16:15, he refers to the pursuit of wealth as an abomination (which is what the Greek word, bdelugma, means). Jesus also warns, “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort” (Luke 6:24). Further, 1 Timothy 6:10 famously asserts that “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains.” In two places – Ephesians 5:5 and Colossians 3:5 – greed (the love and accumulation of wealth and the things that go with it) is referred to as idolatry. Remember that Jesus warned against the worship of Mammon  (Matthew 6:24 & Luke 16:9). By any measure, my wife and I are among the wealthy. So, we take these warning to heart,

We will be judged based on our care for those in need. We will also be judged based on our idolatry. The only way I can be sure I do not worship Mammon/Wealth is by giving as much away as I dare. And maybe dare a little more.

Giving a significant amount also helps us to cultivate a spirit of detachment enabling us to hold things lightly. A common theme in the Bible and throughout the Christian Tradition is that accumulation and attachment to things gets in the way of spiritual growth, i.e., the love of God and love of neighbor. And so, the disciplines of detachment and simplicity are commended. The more we have, the more we put our trust in what we have rather than in God. As John Wesley said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for those that have riches not to trust in them" (On Riches). The stuff of this world is good and it is not a sin to possess enough with which to live. We read in 1 Timothy 4:4-5) that, “Everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.” But, when we possess much it starts to possess us. It warps the way relate to God and others. And so we give.

Why 10 %? In the Old Testament Law an offering of 10% was a specific requirement in some contexts, e.g., Leviticus 27:32 and Numbers 18:26-32. In 1982 the Episcopal Church affirmed the tithe “as the minimum standard of giving for Episcopalians”. This was reaffirmed by General Convention as recently as 2009. The key word there is “minimum”.

The truth is Jesus asks for more, “So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions” (Luke 14:33). While it is true that not all of his followers go all that way even in the Gospels, still Jesus particularly commends those who give everything to follow him. This was picked up in the early Church as for example when St. Irenaeus of Lyon (130-200) wrote,
And instead of the tithes which the law commanded, the Lord said to divide everything we have with the poor. And he said to love not only our neighbors but also our enemies, and to be givers and sharers not only with the good but also to be liberal givers toward those who take away our possessions.
Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter XIII, paragraph 3

And Pope Gregory the Great (540-604):
Some think the Old Testament is stricter than the New, but they judge wrongly; they are fooling themselves. The old law did not punish the desire to hold onto wealth; it punished theft. But now the rich man is not condemned for taking the property of others; rather, he is condemned for not giving his property away.

The wealth we have is not our own. It belongs to God and, under God, to those in need. The real question is not how much we give and to what and why? The real question is how much we keep for ourselves for what and why? 

To be honest, we have not gone that far. We do not give as much as we could. We still own a house, cars, and much else. And, to be honest, I do not believe that faithfulness requires that we impoverish ourselves completely. Still, the words of Jesus remain a challenge to us.

We do not give out of a sense of guilt. We thank God for the grace we have received but we do not want to "sin that grace may abound". We rejoice in our freedom in Christ but do not want to be in bondage to anything (1 Corinthians 6:12), including money, wealth, and things.. And so, we give. We also do not give because we think God will bless us with more wealth if we give. That kind of transactional “Prosperity Gospel” is contrary to the way of Jesus. We give because we love Jesus. We give because we love his Church, the body of Christ. We give because we want to love those he loves  the poor and vulnerable. Jesus tells us not to store up treasures on earth, but to store up for ourselves treasures in heaven (Matthew 6:19-21). Giving is how we do that.

Some Qualifiers

Giving 10% + is what we believe we are called to do and it is significant enough for us to feel it. It is also the case that, together, my wife and I make a decent income. We are still able to live pretty comfortably. We could give more. I also want to acknowledge that my compensation includes insurance and a generous pension. So, those are two things we do not have to worry about as much as some others. And to be perfectly transparent, we tithe on our take-home salary, not our total compensation package which includes those benefits. Not yet anyway. Aside from our mortgage, car payments, and some minimal student debt, we are comparatively debt free. We recognize that that is not everyone's situation. It is also important to note that we are both on the same page when it comes to this commitment. If you are married, and you and your spouse are not on the same page, that changes things. It would not be good for this to become a source of contention in a marriage. But, perhaps careful and prayerful conversation.

I recognize that others’ situation might well be different and giving 10%, even in the restricted sense that we do might not be feasible. So, maybe you aren’t prepared or able, at least at this point, to meet “the minimum standard of giving for Episcopalians.” That is OK. After all we are told, “it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have” (1 Corinthians 8:12-15). But, I am also confident than many could give closer to 10% and nearly everyone can give more than they are currently.

I do encourage you to start somewhere. There is nothing magic about 10%. But, if not 10%, what percentage? It is good to think in terms of a percentage and to set a goal rather lest our giving be ad hoc and haphazard. Not giving  is not an option for faithful Christians who “know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9). So, “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7). “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God” Hebrews 13:16).

Here is a helpful rule of thumb from C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity:
I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words, if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc, is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charitable expenditure excludes them.

See also:

Money: Intoxicant or Eucharist? (On Camels and Needle Eyes)




Saturday, November 16, 2019

John Updike on the Apostles' Creed



I was reminded recently of this from John Updike (1932-2009) on the Apostles’ Creed:

I call myself a Christian by defining 'a Christian' as 'a person willing to profess the Apostles' Creed.' I am willing, unlike most of my friends – many more moral than myself – to profess it (which does not mean understand it, or fill its every syllable with the breath of sainthood), because I know of no other combination of words that gives such life, that so seeks the crux. The creed asks us to believe not in Satan, but only in the 'Hell' into which Christ descends. That hell, in the sense at least of a profound and desolating absence, exists, I do not doubt; the newspaper gives us its daily bulletins. And my sense of things, sentimental I fear, is that wherever a church spire is raised, though dismal slums surround it, and a single dazed widow kneels under it, this Hell is opposed by a rumor of good news, by an irrational confirmation of the plenitude we feel is our birthright.
– ‘Picked Up Pieces

One might wish for something a bit more robust from Updike. I do. Still, I find his almost wistful believing poignant. And there is something beautiful about the idea that a lonely voice professing the creed opposes the powers of Hell with a rumor of good news and “an irrational confirmation of the plenitude we feel is our birthright”. Of course, that plenitude is our birthright. But we traded it for the lentil stew of our sin and idolatry.

See also:


Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Make Friends for Yourselves – Thoughts on Luke 16:1-15



Jesus' parable of the “Dishonest Manager” in Luke 16: 1-15 is notoriously one of the more difficult to understand. Is he commending dishonesty? Is he just talking about forgiveness? Just what is Jesus saying in this parable?

First of all, a word about parables. All parables use images and metaphor to mess with our imagination and reorient it toward Jesus and the kingdom of God. But parables are not one thing. “Parable” is a broad category.   Some of them are allegories in which one thing stands for another. Others are more like stories with a moral. Others are similar to proverbs. Still others are like riddles that leave you pondering. Many, including the Dishonest Manager, have an element of humor. And some are more like a joke in which the point is not so much the set-up as it is the punch line.

Jesus’ parable in Luke 16:1-13 is of the last variety. It is like a joke with a punch line. The story itself is not really the point. We will get hung up if we try to turn it into an allegory in which "the rich man" represents someone and "the manager" represents someone else, etc. It is not that kind of parable. we will also get hung up trying to figure out why Jesus seems to commend this scoundrel of a manager as morally exemplary. But it is not that kind of parable. The story itself is just a somewhat ridiculous and humorous set-up for the punch line. And the punch line packs quite a punch.

And what is the punch line? It comes in verse 9: “And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest [unrighteous] wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes.” I told you it packed a punch. The manager dealt shrewdly with what he had in a worldly way. If we are children of light, we will deal wisely with what we have to make friends who will welcome us into the eternal homes. What does that mean?

1. Unrighteous wealth: Although the New Revised Standard Version and the New International Version read “dishonest manager” and “dishonest wealth,” the King James Version and some other translations has it better when it translates the adjective as “unrighteous”. The Greek word, 
adikias, is translated "unrighteous" or similarly everywhere else in the New Testament so there seems no reason not to here.We have come to think of money and wealth as a good thing or at least morally neutral – as long as we do not come by it dishonestly. But it has not always been so. Jesus, and a broad and long tradition following him, sees money with great ambivalence. It has spiritual power and that power is dangerous. You cannot have much of it without that spirit starting to work on your soul leading you into all sorts of unrighteousness. Jesus goes so far as to call it an abomination in verse 15 (some translations have "detestable" instead, but it is the same Greek word, bdelugma, that is often translated "abomination" in Mark 13:14 and Matthew 24:15). So, the best thing to do is have as little has you need. So, what to do with it?

2. Make friends: It is deep in the tradition that giving alms to the poor is basic to faithfulness. Give and give and give. It is not only a good and faithful thing to do. It might just be salvific (see 
Mercy – Caring for the Poor as Redemptive Liturgy). Caring for the poor for their own sake is good in and of itself. But for Christians, as Pope Leo the Great (400-461) pointed out, rightly in the needy and poor do we recognize the person of Jesus Christ our Lord Himself” (Sermon 9.III). So, making friends with the poor is one way we make a friend of Jesus. 

In verse 12, Jesus goes further, “And if you have not been faithful with what belongs to another, who will give you what is your own?” So, if my “dishonest/unrighteous money is not my own, whose is it? God’s? Certainly. As we pray over our offering, “All things come of Thee, O Lord, and of Thine own have we given Thee” (1 Chronicles 29:14). But in the context, if seems Jesus is implying that the “other” to whom our money belongs is the poor. This was certainly the understanding of the early Church. This line from Ambrose of Milan (340-397) is typical, “You are not making a gift of your possession to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his.”  Thus understanding and clinging tom our money as simply our own is dishonest. The honest and faithful and righteous thing to do is use it to make friends with the poor.

3. They may welcome you into the eternal homes: Shaped as we are by the Reformation, we are used to thinking that all you need is faith. But it is hard to pay attention to Jesus (or to Paul for that matter) and come to the conclusion that it does not matter what we actually do. And the early church was clear that what we do matters and matters eternally. Giving alms to the poor is one of the things that matter. You all know I am big on grace. Grace is indeed the fundamental reality for Christians. But Jesus will not allow us the complacency of cheap grace. Who will welcome us to our heavenly homes? The poor whom God loves. We would do well to make friends with them now. James Forbes put it this way, “Nobody gets into heaven without a letter of reference from the poor.” Similarly, Pope Leo said, “Food for someone in need is the cost of purchasing the kingdom of Heaven, and the one who is generous with temporal things is made heir of the eternal” (Sermon 9.II).

Everything before verse 9 is set-up for that discomforting punch line. Everything after is an elaboration of the point that caring for the poor is an essential means of befriending Jesus and preparing for the kingdom of God.

Here is a story attributed to John the Merciful (early 7th century) that also makes the point well:

There was a certain man, Peter Telenearius, who, in order to get rid of the poor, threw rocks at them. One day when he was again surrounded by them, he had no stone handy, so he grabbed a loaf of bread and threw it at the head of one of them. Later he became sick and saw a vision in which his deeds were being weighed in the balance of divine justice. All his sins were on one side of the balance and on the other side was the loaf of bread thrown at the head of the poor. It had become acceptable to Jesus Christ as an act of mercy.

So, let us be children of light and make friends for ourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome us into the eternal homes.

Of course, alms alone are not enough. We must also address the moral and systemic issues that cause too many to be poor. But that must never let us off the hook of giving of our own wealth for the sake of the poor. And for the sake of our own souls.

Saturday, September 7, 2019

On Luke 14:25-33 and Hating Father and Mother, etc.


This Sunday's Gospel (Luke 14:25-33) contains some hard words from Jesus regarding the cost of following him.

“Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” And “none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.”

Hard words indeed. They are a reminder that faith in/loyalty to Jesus calls into question every other loyalty.

Loyalty to Jesus demands examining all the ways our hearts are entangled with other loyalties that compromise our ability to fully commit to him and his self-sacrificial love of God and neighbor – and enemy.

I have known people who were literally rejected by their family because of their loyalty to Jesus. But, it is also possible to allow love of family to compromise our love of neighbor. Or to choose loyalty to familial norms over loyalty to the norms of Jesus.

By extension, this means all other loyalties are suspect and to be "hated". Loyalty to nation. Loyalty to ethnicity. Loyalty to ideology. Loyalty to political affiliation. Etc. Each can be substituted for true faith in Christ. And each can interfere with our ability to love of the other.

Loyalty to Jesus means relentless and fearless detachment from other loyalties. Not that we are disconnected from others, but we must examine to what extent those connections begin to take priority over our attachment to Jesus and his way.

And all attachments, not least to money and possessions, must be relentlessly and fearlessly examined. One cannot be loyal to Jesus and Mammon. And those loyalties are harder to disentangle than we want to believe. Out attachment to our possessions create spiritual static. The more we have the more likely the static will interfere with our attachment to God and neighbor. The best thing to do is to give away as much as possible.

In 'Grace and Free Will' Augustine argues that this extends to our attachment to/love of our own lives when discussing whether or not it is a faithful option to kill in self-defense. He suggests, with Jesus, that it is not.

This is not easy stuff. But, the point is that Jesus knows that it is only through putting our whole trust in him and following in his way without distraction that we will find the fullness and depth of love, peace, and joy for which we yearn.